[Bug 1057874] Review Request: libspf2 - Implementation of the Sender Policy Framework for SMTP authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874 Matt Domsch changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(matt_domsch@dell. | |com)| --- Comment #17 from Matt Domsch --- Michael, thank you for the review comments. I have fixed these now. Spec URL: https://domsch.com/linux/fedora/libspf2/libspf2.spec SRPM URL: https://domsch.com/linux/fedora/libspf2/libspf2-1.2.10-4.20150405gitd57d79fd.fc21.src.rpm Steve, I hadn't considered EL5. I've got it building fine on EL6 so presumably EL7 will also, and F21 so presumably rawhide. As it stands the autotools stuff is ugly. I'm having to patch each version for the autotools available in it. Maybe I can do that once for the lowest version of each and then it "just works" for newer OS versions so I'd only need to do so twice. Running the bootstrap / autoreconf in %prep isn't ideal either and would suck in autotools build deps. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1089561] Review Request: mod_ruid2 - A suexec module for Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.el7 |mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.el6 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1170664] Review Request: python-mistune - Markdown parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170664 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-mistune-0.5-1.fc20 |python-mistune-0.5-1.el7 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- python-mistune-0.5-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1045676] Review Request: sunwait - Calculate sunrise, sunset, twilight
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045676 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|sunwait-0.1-0.3.20041208.fc |sunwait-0.1-0.3.20041208.el |21 |7 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- sunwait-0.1-0.3.20041208.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1089561] Review Request: mod_ruid2 - A suexec module for Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.fc21 |mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.el7 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738
--- Comment #6 from Taylor Braun-Jones ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #4)
> Thanks for the fixes. So let's look deeper into the project details.
>
> (In reply to Taylor Braun-Jones from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #2)
> > > * MUST: Remove the Group: line. This tag is deprecated since Fedora 17.
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
> > > How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_file_overview
> >
> > So should I remove this even if I'm targeting EPEL6?
>
> Not sure for what it is needed at all.
Neither am I. Removed.
> > > * SHOULD: Why do you package the cmake and tcl files? Those look like
> > > source
> > > or general development files to me. Shouldn't they be placed into a -devel
> > > subpackage? Maybe do not include them at all (if in doubt).
> > > > %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.cmake
> > > > %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.cmake.in
> > > …
> > > > %{_libdir}/%{name}/rules/*.tcl
> > > > %{_libdir}/%{name}/transformations/*.tcl
> >
> > These provide the CMake macros needed to integrate automatic vera++ checks
> > into a CMake-based project. See "Running Vera++ as a test with CMake" and
> > "Running Vera++ during the build with CMake" here:
> >
> > https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/wiki/Running
>
> * Okay, vera++ can be used as a standalone executable besides a full
> integration into another project at build time. Please put those *.cmake*
> files into an own (sub-)package named vera++-devel or cmake-vera++ because
> they are not needed for the minimal use case. Put the main package as a
> Requires. For the tcl files, please see my next comment as this seems to be
> another special case.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages
Okay, cmake files moved into devel subpackage
> * Further, you would have to comply with tcl guideline in particular,
> package especially the *.tcl files into tcl-vera++ as the special guideline
> tells. Also pay attention to the other requirements there.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl
>
> --
> Some other new things I see as general review points by now:
>
> * There is some ctest stuff provided in the upstream source. You could use
> that for a %check section in your spec file.
> https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/src/
> 30f9235797e5e6c34fda48bdaa05af1c0e558dd8/vera.ctest?at=master
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Cmake#Specfile_Usage
This is what I have in the current .spec file posted for review:
%check
cd build
# Skip test that fails when run inside a mock chroot. See:
# https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/issue/73
ctest --output-on-failure --exclude-regex RuleDUMP
Is that what you are referring to?
> * For EPEL, you have to use cmake28 as for RHEL instead of just cmake.
> Please adjust the contitional.
So you want something like this:
%if (0%{?rhel} == 6) || (0%{?epel} == 6)
Is that right? If so, I can certainly do that, but I'm not sure what the point
of the extra conditional is. Under what scenario would check for (0%{?rhel} ==
6) not be sufficient?
> * Please put the generated files from the doc subfolders also in the package
> (or a %{name}-doc named and noarch subpackage if the content is more than
> 1MB in size), you could do this easily by help from the %doc macro.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
The only doc file that gets generated is vera++.html which is only 59K.
> * Plugins (lua, python, tcl) could also get their own subpackage named as
> %{name}-plugins. But this is SHOULD only if it saves some significant space
> in the main package (>1MB).
> https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/src/
> 30f9235797e5e6c34fda48bdaa05af1c0e558dd8/src/plugins/?at=master
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#Subpackages
So even the .tcl files would go in this %{name}-plugins package? I like that
approach best because even though the sum of all the .py, tcl, and .lua files
is less than 200K currently, I expect that it will continue to grow since
python and lua support is a brand new feature. And I think grouping all of
these files into a %{name}-plugins seems more sensible and discoverable than
putting some into a tcl-vera++ package.
> * There's also a manpage generated that you should include into the package.
Isn't that covered by the following line?
%{_datadir}/man/man1/%{name}.1*
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057874] Review Request: libspf2 - Implementation of the Sender Policy Framework for SMTP authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874 Steve Jenkins changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(matt_domsch@dell. ||com) --- Comment #16 from Steve Jenkins --- Matt: At the risk of asking a possibly overly obvious question, I'm assuming you're planning on building for all active branches EL5-7 and F20-Rawhide)? Thx. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127569] Review Request: libstrophe - A simple, lightweight C library for writing XMPP clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127569 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) | Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Keywords||Reopened --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng --- Current version is not stable. I intend to keep it open. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208816] Review Request: ebay-cors-filter - eBay CORS filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208816 Paulo Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pandr...@redhat.com --- Comment #12 from Paulo Andrade --- I suggest you run fedora-review yourself also, so you can test before asking for a new formal review. For rawhide it may be a bit trick right now, and may need to manually install an older openjdk until it is fixed in rawhide. For other fedora releases, it depends on what releases you want the package, and in that case may need to have a different set of patches, depending on what servlet is available. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208222] Review Request: okteta4 - Binary/hex editor for KDE4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208222 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter --- %changelog * Sun Apr 05 2015 Rex Dieter 4.14.3-51 - drop needless Obsoletes, fix struct2osd.sh permissions Spec URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/plasma5/okteta4.spec SRPM URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/plasma5/okteta4-4.14.3-51fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1191498] Review Request: safelease - legacy locking mechanism for VDSM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498 --- Comment #8 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #7) > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Licensing > -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Thanks Michael. Yaniv, please include the change into the spec. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1191498] Review Request: safelease - legacy locking mechanism for VDSM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498 --- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Licensing -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057874] Review Request: libspf2 - Implementation of the Sender Policy Framework for SMTP authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874
--- Comment #15 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group)
---
If you posted up-to-date "Spec URL:" and "SRPM URL:" lines, it would become
much more obvious what the latest files to review are, and the fedora-review
tool would have an easy job fetching the latest packages, too: fedora-review -b
1057874
[...]
https://domsch.com/linux/fedora/libspf/libspf2-1.2.10-3.gitd57d79fd.fc21.src.rpm
This does not follow the snapshot versioning guidelines.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Version_and_Release
->
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
> %if %{compat}
> Provides: libspf2 = %{version}-%{release}
> %endif
Quite useless, if there is no %?_isa Provides as to complement the two
automatic Proides for %name and %name%{?_isa}.
> There are no static libraries included in the -devel package.
Then the %description should not mention "static libraries".
> We do not need to add %{?_isa} to other subpackage Requires,
We do:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
It's the same explicit Requires as in -devel packages (to keep subpackages in
sync with eachother as to avoid surprising developers when releasing bug-fix
updates of libraries - we want them to get a matching pair of packages). It's
the only way to have strict dependencies between subpackages and library base
packages. Unless library symbol versioning is used.
One major flaw with that is, in external packages we rely on the automatic
soname deps to pull in _any_ package that provides the needed lib:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires
It's up to the maintainers to add explicit Requires, if it must be a specific
version-release of the lib for something to work correctly.
> they will be handled automatically by rpmbuild.
Arch-specific versioned explicit Requires are more strict than a basic SONAME
dependency. Also note that there's an automatic lib dependency between -devel
package and base lib package based on the soname. It's just not strict enough
(wrt %release).
> %install
> %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
> %files
> %doc README INSTALL LICENSES TODO
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
> %files devel
> %{_includedir}/spf2/spf*.h
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)
%defattr is not needed anymore for any of the target dists:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057874] Review Request: libspf2 - Implementation of the Sender Policy Framework for SMTP authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874 Matt Domsch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #14 from Matt Domsch --- I've fixed the whitespace in the .spec and uploaded it to my website. I'll drop this copy into the final package being checked in. Not worth doing a rebuild for right now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1057874] Review Request: libspf2 - Implementation of the Sender Policy Framework for SMTP authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057874
Matt Domsch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(matt_domsch@dell. |
|com)|
--- Comment #13 from Matt Domsch ---
There are no static libraries included in the -devel package.
I have added %{?_isa} to the -devel package Requires.
We do not need to add %{?_isa} to other subpackage Requires, they will be
handled automatically by rpmbuild.
I believe the scriptlets are sane, they only run ldconfig and manage
adding/removing to alternatives.
libspf2-1.2.10-3.gitd57d79fd.fc21.x86_64.rpm and related files
posted to https://domsch.com/linux/fedora/libspf2/ with the only change being
to add %{?_isa} to the -devel package Requires.
diff -urNp 2/libspf2.spec 3/libspf2.spec
--- 2/libspf2.spec 2015-04-04 17:00:15.0 -0500
+++ 3/libspf2.spec 2015-04-05 15:08:58.0 -0500
@@ -4,9 +4,9 @@
# Each change to the spec requires a bump to version/release of both library
and perlmod
%global git d57d79fd
%global library_version 1.2.10
-%global library_release 2.git%{git}%{?dist}
+%global library_release 3.git%{git}%{?dist}
%global perlmod_version 0.01
-%global perlmod_release 6.git%{git}%{?dist}
+%global perlmod_release 7.git%{git}%{?dist}
# Set to 1 for a compat-libspf2 package
%global compat 0
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ Summary: Development tools needed to bui
Group: Development/Libraries
Version: %{library_version}
Release: %{library_release}
-Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
%description devel
The libspf2-devel package contains the header files and static
@@ -281,6 +281,9 @@ exit 0
%endif
%changelog
+* Sun Apr 5 2015 Matt Domsch - 1.2.10-3
+- update for review comments
+
* Sat Apr 4 2015 Matt Domsch - 1.2.10-2
- update to upstream 1.2.10+git
- update automake / autoconf for Fedora 21
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208816] Review Request: ebay-cors-filter - eBay CORS filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208816
--- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4)
> (In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #2)
> with the newer javapackages-tools/maven-local
> %dir %{_javadir}/%{name}
> is no more required (for F22, and rawhide is redundant)
for F22 have some doubt... ask to mizdebsk, Mikolaj Izdebski, @ fedora-java irc
channel
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1201654] Review Request: tmux-top - Monitoring information for your tmux status line.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201654 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- tmux-top-0.0.1-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208454] Review Request: python-barbicanclient - Client Library for OpenStack Barbican Key Management API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208454 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-barbicanclient-3.0.3-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1183193] Review Request: ceres-solver - A non-linear least squares minimizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183193 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- ceres-solver-1.10.0-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199842] Review Request: jackson-module-jsonSchema - Jackson JSON Schema Module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199842 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- jackson-module-jsonSchema-2.5.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127569] Review Request: libstrophe - A simple, lightweight C library for writing XMPP clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127569 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Flags|fedora-review? | Last Closed||2015-04-05 13:49:28 --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter --- It's been a couple of months already, marking as stalled review per: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews#Submitter_not_responding Feel free to re-open when/if you have anything new to add. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208222] Review Request: okteta4 - Binary/hex editor for KDE4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208222 --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter --- the okteta-libs and okteta-part items will continue to be provided by the main okteta package, this is just a kde4 version to provide compatibility with older apps not yet ported to kf5 (kdevelop mostly) the struct2osd.sh script almost certainly should be executable, we can definitely fix that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1209054] Review Request: pyqso - logging tool for radio amateurs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209054 Iain R. Learmonth changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1209054] New: Review Request: pyqso - logging tool for radio amateurs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209054 Bug ID: 1209054 Summary: Review Request: pyqso - logging tool for radio amateurs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i...@fsfe.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~irl/files/pyqso.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~irl/files/pyqso-0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: PyQSO is a logging tool for amateur radio operators. It provides a simple graphical interface through which users can manage information about the contacts/QSOs they make with other operators on the air. All information is stored in a light-weight SQL database. Fedora Account System Username: irl The package builds successfully and the functionality has been tested on F21. The package also builds successfully on F23: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9417851 This is my first Fedora package and so will need to be sponsored. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208816] Review Request: ebay-cors-filter - eBay CORS filter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208816 --- Comment #10 from Sandro Bonazzola --- Thanks Gil for the fixes! So if I've understood correctly, the only pending changes are: - add cors-flowchart.png to %doc - change new lines in README.md, LICENSE and NOTICE Everything else has been already addressed by Gil right? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177453] Review Request: jxmpp - An Open Source XMPP Java base-library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177453 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora_requires_release_not |fedora-cvs? |e? | --- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #6) > > Flags: fedora_requires_release_note? > > Are you sure? Why no fedora-cvs request? sorry my fault -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177453] Review Request: jxmpp - An Open Source XMPP Java base-library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177453 --- Comment #6 from Raphael Groner --- > Flags: fedora_requires_release_note? Are you sure? Why no fedora-cvs request? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177453] Review Request: jxmpp - An Open Source XMPP Java base-library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177453 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|projects...@smart.ms QA Contact|projects...@smart.ms|extras...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jbosh.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177453] Review Request: jxmpp - An Open Source XMPP Java base-library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177453 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177453] Review Request: jxmpp - An Open Source XMPP Java base-library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177453 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora_requires_release_not ||e? --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jxmpp Short Description: An Open Source XMPP Java base-library Upstream URL: https://github.com/igniterealtime/jxmpp Owners: gil Branches: f21 f22 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1191498] Review Request: safelease - legacy locking mechanism for VDSM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
Douglas Schilling Landgraf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/fedora/1191498-safelease/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Test run failed
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer s
[Bug 1177453] Review Request: jxmpp - An Open Source XMPP Java base-library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177453
Raphael Groner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2)
> Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jxmpp.spec
> SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jxmpp-0.4.1-1.fc21.src.rpm
>
> - update to 0.4.1
The SRPM link gives error 404. Using instead the fc20 build found here:
https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jxmpp-0.4.1-1.fc20.src.rpm
APPROVED
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
==> OK cause of %license LICENSE but warning this won't work for EPEL and not
for Fedora20!
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Apache (v2.0)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-
review/jxmpp/licensecheck.txt
==> All files include valid license text.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_ma
[Bug 1208701] Review Request: jpype-py3 - JPype allows Python3 programs full access to Java class libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208701 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208701] Review Request: jpype-py3 - JPype allows Python3 programs full access to Java class libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208701 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo --- NO blocking issues. APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208701] Review Request: jpype-py3 - JPype allows Python3 programs full access to Java class libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208701
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo ---
NOTE: manual review
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
Note: Cannot find LICENSE.txt in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
IGNORE
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 17 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1208701-jpype-py3/review-
jpype-py3/licensecheck.txt
jpype-py3-ca6fc96a76d430c753b56ec2a4ed2a3eced0dac3/native/cygwin/jni_md.h
GPLv2
jpype-py3-ca6fc96a76d430c753b56ec2a4ed2a3eced0dac3/native/python/include/capsulethunk.h
GPL/Python
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4, /usr/lib/python3.4/site-
packages, /usr/share/licenses
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages,
/usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib/python3.4
[?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
python3-setuptools is already installed, maybe, you should remove
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
see above
jni_md.h is part of JDK
capsulethunk.h is part of Python
https://hg.python.org/cpython/file/b4cbecbc0781/Doc/includes/capsulethunk.h
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 8 files.
[-]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must m
[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738 --- Comment #5 from Raphael Groner --- * There's also a manpage generated that you should include into the package. https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/src/30f9235797e5e6c34fda48bdaa05af1c0e558dd8/doc/CMakeLists.txt?at=master#cl-36 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Manpages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1207946] Review Request: javawriter - A Java API for generating .java source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207946 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: javawriter Short Description: A Java API for generating .java source files Upstream URL: https://github.com/square/javapoet Owners: gil Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127569] Review Request: libstrophe - A simple, lightweight C library for writing XMPP clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127569 --- Comment #3 from Raphael Groner --- Is there still any interest here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1207946] Review Request: javawriter - A Java API for generating .java source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207946 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #4) > > - Are you really sure to rename this package in Fedora to javawriter in > contrast to the upstream name javapoet? How can it be found with the classic > name as guessed from upstream? Okay, I can see the recent github releases > are named javawriter. Maybe we should use the younger fork of google. > [?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > the library was originally appointed javawriter and recently has been renamed javapoet. the two libraries are incompatible. the fork of google dagger (https://github.com/google/dagger) uses as you said their fork javawriter ... for me ... a crap ... until i prefer to use the original (Square) release for me there aren't contrast with upstream > > Square's Javawriter > > This is a fork of Square's Javapoet intended as a staging ground for changes > > originating from inside google. While it may vary from Square's, the > > intention > > is that all changes end up merged into to Square's repository, and that this > > fork will only vary temporarily while change is in process. Generally, > > unless > > you are depending on features not yet merged you should depend on square's > > version. We have no plans to do releases, though this fork will publish > > snapshots on successful merges. > https://github.com/google/javapoet/blob/master/README.md For now i prefer use the Square library and not have > - Include also %doc CONTRIBUTING.md into %files cause this file tells to > sign a special contract about copyright etc. to be allowed for contribution > at upstream. Done > Maven: > [?]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even > when building with ant > > ==> Can not check magical maven logic. listed in .mfiles* > [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > ==> Could those test/**/*Test.java files be used to run a short test? Why is > it broken? The all test suite use fest-assert-core:2.0M8 and i tried to remove some files but at the end not have one valid *Test.java file for this scope > > # Unavailable test deps: org.easytesting:fest-assert-core:2.0M8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738
--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner ---
Thanks for the fixes. So let's look deeper into the project details.
(In reply to Taylor Braun-Jones from comment #3)
> (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #2)
> > * MUST: Remove the Group: line. This tag is deprecated since Fedora 17.
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
> > How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_file_overview
>
> So should I remove this even if I'm targeting EPEL6?
Not sure for what it is needed at all.
> > * SHOULD: Why do you package the cmake and tcl files? Those look like source
> > or general development files to me. Shouldn't they be placed into a -devel
> > subpackage? Maybe do not include them at all (if in doubt).
> > > %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.cmake
> > > %{_libdir}/%{name}/*.cmake.in
> > …
> > > %{_libdir}/%{name}/rules/*.tcl
> > > %{_libdir}/%{name}/transformations/*.tcl
>
> These provide the CMake macros needed to integrate automatic vera++ checks
> into a CMake-based project. See "Running Vera++ as a test with CMake" and
> "Running Vera++ during the build with CMake" here:
>
> https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/wiki/Running
* Okay, vera++ can be used as a standalone executable besides a full
integration into another project at build time. Please put those *.cmake* files
into an own (sub-)package named vera++-devel or cmake-vera++ because they are
not needed for the minimal use case. Put the main package as a Requires. For
the tcl files, please see my next comment as this seems to be another special
case.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages
* Further, you would have to comply with tcl guideline in particular, package
especially the *.tcl files into tcl-vera++ as the special guideline tells. Also
pay attention to the other requirements there.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl
--
Some other new things I see as general review points by now:
* There is some ctest stuff provided in the upstream source. You could use that
for a %check section in your spec file.
https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/src/30f9235797e5e6c34fda48bdaa05af1c0e558dd8/vera.ctest?at=master
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Cmake#Specfile_Usage
* For EPEL, you have to use cmake28 as for RHEL instead of just cmake. Please
adjust the contitional.
* Please put the generated files from the doc subfolders also in the package
(or a %{name}-doc named and noarch subpackage if the content is more than 1MB
in size), you could do this easily by help from the %doc macro.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation
* Plugins (lua, python, tcl) could also get their own subpackage named as
%{name}-plugins. But this is SHOULD only if it saves some significant space in
the main package (>1MB).
https://bitbucket.org/verateam/vera/src/30f9235797e5e6c34fda48bdaa05af1c0e558dd8/src/plugins/?at=master
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#Subpackages
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1170213] Review Request: modoboa - Mail hosting and management platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170213 Bug 1170213 depends on bug 1170069, which changed state. Bug 1170069 Summary: Review Request: python-django-database-url - Use Database URLs in your Django Application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170069 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1170069] Review Request: python-django-database-url - Use Database URLs in your Django Application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170069 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-django-database-url- ||0.3.0-3.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-04-05 10:34:15 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-django-database-url-0.3.0-3.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1200384] Review Request: ocaml-config-file - Configuration file management for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200384 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ocaml-config-file-1.2-4.fc2 |ocaml-config-file-1.2-4.fc2 |2 |1 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- ocaml-config-file-1.2-4.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199268] Review Request: python-libdiscid - Python bindings for libdiscid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199268 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||picard-1.3.2-2.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-04-05 10:28:59 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- picard-1.3.2-2.fc21, python-libdiscid-0.4.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1191498] Review Request: safelease - legacy locking mechanism for VDSM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191498
--- Comment #5 from Yaniv Bronhaim ---
Hi,
I checked the files and found that the tar.gz file which the spec refers to was
out-of-date. I didn't change the spec or the src.rpm, only uploaded the right
tar file to the specified path in spec -
https://bronhaim.fedorapeople.org/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Please re-run
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1207946] Review Request: javawriter - A Java API for generating .java source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207946
Raphael Groner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner ---
APPROVED
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
Note: Cannot find LICENSE.txt in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
==> OK cause of %license LICENSE.txt, but warning that this will not work for
EPEL and Fedora 20!
- Are you really sure to rename this package in Fedora to javawriter in
contrast to the upstream name javapoet? How can it be found with the classic
name as guessed from upstream? Okay, I can see the recent github releases are
named javawriter. Maybe we should use the younger fork of google.
> Square's Javawriter
> This is a fork of Square's Javapoet intended as a staging ground for changes
> originating from inside google. While it may vary from Square's, the
> intention
> is that all changes end up merged into to Square's repository, and that this
> fork will only vary temporarily while change is in process. Generally, unless
> you are depending on features not yet merged you should depend on square's
> version. We have no plans to do releases, though this fork will publish
> snapshots on successful merges.
https://github.com/google/javapoet/blob/master/README.md
- Include also %doc CONTRIBUTING.md into %files cause this file tells to sign a
special contract about copyright etc. to be allowed for contribution at
upstream.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-
review/1207946-javawriter/licensecheck.txt
==> OK. But two files without embedded license text, maybe report that as an
upstream issue.
==> The javadoc script is not redistributed and other is test stuff.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
==> Please try to confirm with upstream to use the fork name, see my comment
above.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: S
[Bug 1208222] Review Request: okteta4 - Binary/hex editor for KDE4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208222 Florian "der-flo" Lehner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@der-flo.net Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@der-flo.net Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Florian "der-flo" Lehner --- Hi Dieter There is one error and some warnings from rpmlint: [...] okteta4-libs.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided okteta-libs okteta4-libs.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided okteta-part okteta4-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation okteta4-libs.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/struct2osd.sh 0644L okteta4-libs.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/bin/struct2osd.sh 0644L /bin/bash [...] Everything else seems to be fine, so far. Cheers and happy Easter! Flo For the records: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9417501 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208701] Review Request: jpype-py3 - JPype allows Python3 programs full access to Java class libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208701 --- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner --- Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/jpype-py3/jpype-py3.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/jpype-py3/jpype-py3-0-0.1.20150202gitca6fc96.fc21.src.rpm Description: JPype allows Python3 programs full access to Java class libraries Fedora Account System Username: raphgro rawhide scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9417336 (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3) > Please, fix also Url field > https://github.com/jcalmant/jpype-py3 ERROR 404: Not Found. A nasty typo fooled myself. Sorry for any confusion. I've updated with new files. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208701] Review Request: jpype-py3 - JPype allows Python3 programs full access to Java class libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208701 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo --- Please, fix also Url field https://github.com/jcalmant/jpype-py3 ERROR 404: Not Found. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1208701] Review Request: jpype-py3 - JPype allows Python3 programs full access to Java class libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208701 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- wget https://github.com/jcalmant/jpype-py3/archive/jpype-py3/ca6fc96a76d430c753b56ec2a4ed2a3eced0dac3.zip#/jpype-py3-ca6fc96.zip --2015-04-05 10:22:49-- https://github.com/jcalmant/jpype-py3/archive/jpype-py3/ca6fc96a76d430c753b56ec2a4ed2a3eced0dac3.zip Resolution github.com (github.com)... 192.30.252.131 Connecting to github.com (github.com)|192.30.252.131|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 2015-04-05 10:22:49 ERROR 404: Not Found. Please fix Source URL -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
